Re: How do I make an Image visible?

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 10/1/2007 5:08 AM:
Randy Webb wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 10/1/2007 4:03 AM:
Randy Webb wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 9/30/2007 6:16 PM:
Cov wrote:
On Sep 30, 11:10 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Again, sounds like a pretty poor (or at least outdated) guide.
http://www.amazon.com/JavaScript-Definitive-Guide-David-Flanagan/dp/0596101996/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-9656642-3533224?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191186893&sr=8-1
Thanks for further confirmation that also this book can definitely and
safely be recommended against. How many more bad examples from it are
required until the FAQ maintainer eventually removes the recommendation from
the FAQ?
It won't be removed any time in the foreseeable future so you can - safely - stop asking for it to be removed.
You as a *responsible* FAQ editor leaving a statement in the FAQ that this
book is "currently endorsed by c.l.j. regulars of comp.lang.javascript"
should first make sure that it *is* actually currently endorsed by the
regulars of comp.lang.javascript.
It is nice to see that you have assumed I haven't done something that I did do. Can you post articles in the last 8 months where people have commented on the book? I have read them all. Perhaps you should also.

There are at least 3 people posting here regularly (which is the definition
for "regular"; the definition is not "people [whose statements] you like")
who have explicitly or implicitly recommended against this book. If you
would be a reasonable person and a responsible FAQ maintainer, you would not
wait for enough negative statements to accumulate over months(!) but do a
strawpoll NOW to determine whether or not the statement in the FAQ is still true.

If I were to apply "reason" to the FAQ, 99% of it wouldn't exist the way it is written. Second, I am not going to do a strawpoll "NOW" every week or two just to see what might have changed.

One of the three people you refer to has also said that in the lack of a better book that it was recommended not as a "good book" but as the "least bad book". The possibility of writing a "good book" about JS is virtually impossible as the time it takes to actually write the book outlasts the time on the web that the information in the book is any good.

Either way, I am not removing it from the FAQ - for now.

Or you have proven to be inept enough to be the editor of the newsgroup's
FAQ and should be replaced by a more reasonable person ASAP.
Coming from you, that is hilarious.

If you have nothing else to say about this, I rest my case.

You didn't have a case to start with so rest it all you want.

Several major corrections have been made by regulars of this group regarding
the FAQ. Yet you seem unwilling or unable to change anything. This
behavior qualifies as being unreasonable, irresponsible, and eventually inept.

The requests for changes where the changes were given, rather than alluded to, were changed. If a request is made "I think 4.6 should be changed" then I simply ignore it. I did not agree to go searching all over the web in the hopes of trying to figure out what it is they think should be changed. If a change is requested and they say "I think this word/paragraph/code should be changed to this word/paragraph/code" then it has gotten changed.

BTW: It should be "c.l.js" or "cljs" to distinguish it from comp.lang.java.*
The newsgroup is comp.lang.javascript and its abbreviation has always been clj/c.l.j and I will continue to refer to it as clj/c.l.j as my mood sees fit.

That's the point: if you would be a reasonable and responsible FAQ
maintainer you would know that it is no longer your mood that counts.

Fine, let me clarify it another way that - hopefully - satisfies your pedantic desires:

I will continue to refer to comp.lang.javascript as clj for as long as I participate in this group. I am not going to change the abbreviation that I have used for this group for 10 years simply because you think it could be confused with some other hierarchy.

EOD.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Subclassing, Inheritance, RE subclass "constructor" and inherited members
    ... Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 8/28/2007 6:31 PM: ... Shall we not remove that recommendation from the FAQ already? ... How would you have a "realistic chance" of seeing someone quote from a "good book" that doesn't exist? ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: How do I make an Image visible?
    ... required until the FAQ maintainer eventually removes the recommendation from ... regulars of comp.lang.javascript. ... regulars of the newsgroup in the FAQ if there is any doubt that not all ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: How do I make an Image visible?
    ... required until the FAQ maintainer eventually removes the recommendation from ... You as a *responsible* FAQ editor leaving a statement in the FAQ that this ... If not, that reason ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: How do I make an Image visible?
    ... required until the FAQ maintainer eventually removes the recommendation from ... Several major corrections have been made by regulars of this group regarding ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: FAQ/FAQ notes site makeover
    ... The maintainer's task would be very greatly simplified thereby, because the number of requests would be greatly reduced thereby. ... A FAQ maintainer must be selected as one of sufficient experience and judgement to be able to tell when there is, or will be, a general consensus among the /cognoscenti/ in favour of a particular change. ... The article may have become inadequate because of changed browser circumstances, or may always have been inadequate; the article may be inadequately written, or the user may just be obtuse. ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)